Judge Denies Recusal Request; Prosecutor Files Motion to Reconsider

JONESBORO, Ark. — Circuit Judge Doug Brimhall has denied a request by District Prosecutor Sonia F. Hagood to recuse from cases involving the prosecutor’s office, but Hagood isn’t backing down.

In response to the request filed on January 14, 2025, Judge Brimhall entered his order on April 28 denying the motion. Brimhall addresses the state’s request to recuse from “any and all cases” involving the 2nd Judicial District Prosecuting Attorney’s office.

Read More: Motion for Recusal

“The State’s motion relies on the undersign’s past conduct and the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office’s actions (e.g., appointing a Special Prosecutor “to avoid any conflict of interest” and expressing concerns to the bench and disciplinary board through a published letter,” Brimhall’s order says. “However, these events do not establish objective evidence of bias or prejudice against the State or its associated parties. The mere fact of a prior criminal charge or plea, resolved through lawful process, does not inherently impair judicial impartiality. A judge is not required to recuse simply because of his or her personal life experiences. See Reel v State, 318 Ark. 565, 886 S. W. 2d 615 (1994).”

The standard for a judge to decide on his recusal, as Brimhall states multiple times in the order, is if a judge’s impartiality can be reasonably questioned. Brimhall argues in his order that the state has not established objective evidence of bias or prejudice.

“The Court acknowledges the State’s request for a hearing in the event of a denial,” Brimhall’s order says. “However, when a motion to recuse is void of any supportive facts and contains mere conclusory allegations that a judge is biased or otherwise subject to recusal or disqualification, the Court may summarily deny said motion without a hearing. See Stilley v Fort Smith School District, 367 Ark. 193, 238 S.W. 3d 902 (2006).”

Read More: Order Denying Motion

On May 14, Hagood filed a motion to ask the court to reconsider the state’s motion to recuse and a second request for a hearing. The new motion claims the judge’s denial overlooks specific and undeniable instances of conduct that call the Court’s impartiality into “serious question.”

First, Hagood brings up the judge’s criminal conduct and resignation. Hagood alleges that Brimhall made several false statements during an interview with NEA Report about her role in his criminal proceedings.

“However, in a public interview to NEA Report, this Court misrepresented the facts, implying that the undersigned had informed the media about Brimhall’s resignation,” Hagood writes. “This is categorically false.”

Second, Hagood brings up that Brimhall made statements suggesting she had obstructed an investigation involving Brimhall’s family member. Brimhall had said he talked to Hagood about an issue and thought she could help. Hagood said the assertion is false and that Brimhall knows the Greene County Sheriff’s Office “worked tirelessly on that case. The undersigned, nor any other law enforcement agency, impeded that investigation.”

Third, Hagood states that Brimhall admitted to having a negative professional relationship with her. Again, citing the NEA Report interview, Hagood quotes Brimhall as saying, “I thought Sonia and I had a great relationship,” which she said implied a personal affront.

Item four cites an instance where Brimhall insinuated that she transferred an investigation to another agency due to a conflict of interest. Item five raises an issue about a campaign donation Brimhall brought up to NEA Report, alleging that Hagood’s husband was the biggest contributor to his opponent’s campaign.

Hagood draws attention to the letters that several in the legal community wrote questioning his fitness to serve in item number six. Brimhall stated in his interview with NEA Report that he thought the legal community had “professional courtesy.”

“Such statements create a dangerous precedent, insinuating that members of the legal community—including judges—should be exempt from scrutiny or accountability for their actions,” Hagood writes. “This kind of thinking is not only harmful to the credibility of the judiciary but also erodes public trust in the legal system as a whole. The undersigned was merely carrying out her ethical obligations, ensuring that the law was followed, and that justice was served, not preserving a misguided sense of “courtesy” that can only result in the law being undermined.”

Hagood quotes Brimhall as saying, “Maybe it does feel personal,” regarding the letters, and says she agrees that the court’s actions indicate a personal bias against her.

Finally, Hagood draws attention to Brimhall’s statement of, “Now I truly know what a Defendant in a criminal case feels like…Now I’ve experienced that side as well, which makes me even more qualified to be a judge.” According to Hagood, this is a highly inappropriate statement  that shows “blatant disregard for the role of prosecution and the legal system as a whole.” Hagood asserts that this reveals an extreme bias against prosecutors and prosecution.

“Would this Court believe that a prosecutor was better qualified for the role if they committed a crime themselves?” Hagood asked.

Hagood calls these undeniable compromises in the appearance of impartiality, asking again that the Court reconsider its prior ruling and grant a hearing on the matter.

Read More: Motion to Reconsider

Hagood filed the motions requesting Brimhall’s recusal across multiple court cases, many of which are property forfeitures. Although property forfeitures are civil cases, they’re brought by prosecutors and the state. The same motions (and response from the court) have been filed in 18CV-25-245, 18CV-24-1200, 56CV-24-182, and other cases.

Hagood’s second motion goes into much greater specific detail about the alleged reasonable appearance of impropriety. Brimhall must not only decide on his recusal, but if he will grant a hearing on the matter he previously denied over motions he said were “void of any supportive facts…”

NEA Report will continue to follow this story.